Cryptium Labs: Ethereum Foundation Can't Fund Core Development

特邀专栏作者

2019-12-18 13:09 (UTC+8)

This article is about 3715 words, reading the full article takes about 6 minutes

Notes of Satoshi Mamoto, select 5 latest high-quality articles on cryptocurrencies every day for value investors to eat.

AI Summary

Expand

Notes of Satoshi Mamoto, select 5 latest high-quality articles on cryptocurrencies every day for value investors to eat.

secondary title

Cryptium Labs: Ethereum Foundation Can't Fund Core Development

This is the comment of Cryptium Labs founder Adrian Brink on the conversion of Parity Ethereum, one of the Ethereum development teams, to the DAO ownership and maintainer model. The main core opinion is to criticize the status quo of the Ethereum Foundation. Hudson Jameson and Parity CTO's of mutual comments. Adrian himself is the developer of Pokadot/Tezos/Cosmos. The comments are as follows:

Adrian Brink (Cryptium labs): Newer protocols with on-chain governance have the ability to pay core development fees. Ethereum's inability/unwillingness to pay for one of the core development teams is an obvious consequence. I think it's easier to think about token distribution. For example, it is reasonable to offer 2-3% additional token issuance over 10 years. Ethereum is valued at more than 10 billion U.S. dollars. Can’t the contribution of stable core developers bring 1% value-added to Ethereum in ten years?

Hudson Jameson (Ethereum Foundation): The foundation gave them a partially paid grant. Parity is actually focusing on technologies other than Ethereum (Poca), this is not a funding problem as you imagined.

Adrian Brink (Cryptium labs): Agreed it's a matter of opportunity cost, not cost. They are not compensated for their opportunity cost by the Ethereum ecosystem, so their behavior is justified.

Lefteris Karapetsas (Ethereum Development): As Hudson Jameson said it's not a funding issue. The Ethereum Foundation actually funds them. They originally had a lot of ETH that was just being hacked, and now they have no incentive to continue to develop in Ethereum, because they cannot get rich by holding Ethereum.

Adrian Brink (Cryptium labs): It's an opportunity cost question. The Ethereum ecosystem needs to distribute real ether to the core developers, otherwise only the early ethereum investors will care about ethereum.

Alexandra Heller (Parity): It's both an opportunity cost and a cost issue. Parity awarded $2.5M for ETH 1.0 work. However, the cost of developing and maintaining Parity clients is much more than that. During peak development, Parity spent approximately $4 million per year on Parity Ethereum clients.

Hudson Jameson (Ethereum Foundation): I hope you fully explained the cost issue in your blog announcing OpenEthereum. But the blog shows that due to stakeholder feedback, this is a shift in priorities and you are turning to Polkadot.

Hudson Jameson (Ethereum Foundation): The blog just doesn't adequately represent the full picture, that's why I said I hope it does, it just mentions the stakeholder perspective and focus shift. I admit, I shouldn't have said "it's not about funding". Including this situation, things are manifold. I don't believe "Parity is ditching Ethereum". Parity's blog post doesn't say it's a money issue, as it should be. I believe this will reduce the ill will towards you in the community.

secondary title

5 Predictions for DeFi in 2020

Wave Financial wrote five predictions for Defi in the coming year:

1. Stablecoin market cap will exceed $15 billion
In 2019, the total market capitalization of stablecoins grew ~50% from $3.3B to $5B+, with Tether dominance reaching ~80%.
The 3x growth in stablecoins will come from multiple areas:
– Launch of Libra
– New stablecoins from CELO, Velo, Saga, Franklin Templeton and more
– Growth of landing use cases
– Multi-Collateral Dai accepts new assets as collateral (BTC, Treasuries)

– Increased desire for yield in a negative interest rate environment

2. Interoperability will be achieved in 2020

In addition to Keep's tBTC, Thorchain, Ren mainnet, the growing Cosmos ecosystem, Interledger Protocol, Kava, 1 way pegs, 2 way pegs, bridges, atomic swaps, 2020 will also see the launch of Polkadot.

Despite the inevitability of interoperability, I think the biggest impact will revolve around Bitcoin, and in a sea of cross-chain competition, I believe 2020 will emerge to satisfy these trade-offs and eventually allow BTC to move between chains. Solutions for trust exchanges.

3. BTC will replace Ethereum as the main value locked in DeFi

Bitcoin has 3x the liquidity, 8x the market cap, and has historically been less volatile than ETH, making it an advanced form of collateral. Once the cross-chain is completed, Bitcoin will replace Ethereum as the main base value of DeFi.

4. Rollups and non-custodial exchanges will increase the share of current decentralized exchanges tenfold

ZK Rollups in particular promise to increase the throughput of ETH to over 2k+ TPS. Cryptocurrencies have come under increased scrutiny from regulators, with many exchanges delisting assets like privacy coins, and exchanges acting as custodians with high regulatory/insurance costs. With the technology finally catching up to the hype of 2017, decentralized exchanges will gain significant market share by 2020.

The introduction of less volatile collateral such as treasury bonds, USDA-mandated stablecoins, gold, real estate/invoices, etc., is expected to reduce collateral ratios. Given the inherent volatility of crypto collateral, collateral ratios will always need to provide a meaningful cushion.

secondary title

Is it nonsense to judge the success of cryptocurrencies based on mainstream adoption?

This article is part of CoinDesk's 2019 Year in Review interview with Jill Carlson, co-founder of the Open Money Initiative, a nonprofit research organization dedicated to securing the right to a free and open financial system, and co-chair What Grinds My Gears podcast. She has also served as an advisor to startups such as Algorand, Risk Labs, dYdX, CoinList and Tezos.

Why haven't cryptocurrencies gone mainstream?

"It doesn't scale."

"very slow."

"It's expensive."

"It's mutable."

"Hard to use."

Or maybe it was never supposed to be mainstream.

Cryptocurrencies cannot solve mainstream problems. Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto described the cryptocurrency as a tool of freedom. He compared it to other Tor-like peer-to-peer networks that are similarly resilient to censorship. We can see that this is indeed how Bitcoin is used from China to Palestine. Furthermore, we have little quantitative data showing that cryptocurrency usage is higher in countries with financial restrictions. These results coincide with predictions about cryptocurrency adoption that have been around for years. It’s time to face this reality: Cryptocurrencies are most useful when they violate laws and social structures.

As an industry, we spend a lot of time thinking about how to drive mainstream adoption of cryptocurrencies. I would hate to live in a world where cryptocurrencies have become mainstream. If anything, the world is a pretty scary place.

Judging cryptocurrencies based on whether they become mainstream adoption is nonsense.

secondary title

Defi deja vu

There are important patterns in the historical development of finance, most notably systemic crises associated with the collapse of asset prices or income streams and the repeated interplay between financial innovation and regulation. Understanding these relationships can help architects of the open automated cryptographic financial services known as DeFi assess potential risks and prepare for different economic and regulatory scenarios. This article highlights some relevant historical precedent and considers the potential long-term implications of this latest wave of financial innovation.
(1) In England in the late 18th and 19th centuries, limited liability was combined with transferable shares.
(2) Developments around the US financial crisis in the late 19th century and early 20th century.
(3) The stock market boom of the 1920s, the crash of 1929 and its regulatory consequences in the United States.

(4) Following the collapse of the Bretton Woods system in 1971, especially in the US, but increasingly around the world, deregulation and technological development led to the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) of 2007-08.

Crypto-fintech offers unique opportunities to democratize access to finance and make economic systems more efficient and transparent. However, it also has the potential to create new forms of systemic risk, especially as crypto assets and DeFi applications grow in their role in coordinating real economic activity. As systems emerge with increasing complexity, the human ability to understand and directly control or control the system may decline. Time will tell whether this is a desirable function, at least as long as finance fulfills its fundamental purpose, the activities necessary for health and well-being that are sustained.